Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board postpones vote on Antares/Hackberry microwave backhaul tower after engineers disagree on siting and backhaul options
Summary
After competing RF analyses from the county consultant and the applicant, the Board of Supervisors voted to postpone action on a special-use permit for a proposed wireless communications tower to allow both RF engineers to compare data and confirm microwave path and setback calculations.
The Mohave County Board of Supervisors on May 18 opened a public hearing on a special-use permit for a wireless communications facility (APN 333-42-017) proposed for the Antares area to provide backhaul connectivity for a Hackberry coverage tower.
The county had contracted Terrigence to provide an RF engineering review; its consultant (Christian Rufert) told the board that the Antares site functions primarily as a microwave backhaul relay rather than a mobile-coverage cell site and outlined alternatives including: seeking existing fiber along the nearby railroad right-of-way, daisy-chaining microwave relays along the railway, or strengthening/heightening an existing tower at Northern Arizona Fire District Station 36. Rufert rated strengthening the fire-station tower as a "highly feasible solution." He said fiber along the railroad would be preferable if available, but a 16-mile southern dig to reach Highway 40 would likely be uneconomical.
Applicant-side engineers (Steven Kennedy, representing Sun State/Pinnacle/Verizon, and Chad Ward of Pinnacle) said they had run microwave path studies and submitted a path study indicating the minimum microwave path required roughly a 220-foot structure on the receiving side and that the proposed Antares location fills a significant coverage gap. Kennedy said the fire-station tower would require structural strengthening and would likely need to be ~240 feet (which would trigger lighting and generator requirements and might not meet setbacks), whereas consultants working from satellite elevation data believed a ~190-foot solution at the fire station could be feasible.
Board members asked staff to obtain copies of the applicant—s path-study documentation so the county consultant and the applicant—s consultants could reconcile technical differences. The board voted to postpone the decision to the next meeting to allow two weeks for both RF engineers to verify the data and for county development services to confirm setback and height compliance; the motion carried by voice vote.
Chair Lingenfelter told the applicant he did not want to delay indefinitely but wanted the engineers on the same page to ensure any approval would be technically defensible and responsive to neighbor concerns about tower height, lighting and siting.
The postponement keeps the special-use permit unresolved; staff and both consultants were asked to exchange studies and to provide additional documentation to the county prior to the continued hearing.
